Minor V. Voigt For Uspsa Pres.

[mgmcaleer]

Flexmoney,

Thanks for clearing everything up and getting us back on track.. I am new to the sport so I was just looking for some input from some shooters who may have been in the sport and have some experience. It seems like everyone has their own opinion on where the divisions should be. I like what Denise Minor has to say about aligning the divisions based on todays gun laws. The divisions, as they are today, seem to please everyone and work just fine. I am a single stack shooter and want to compete with shooters using the same gear as me.

Thanks everyone.

[Jon Merricks]

If you are not interested in who is going to run the sport or what they are going to do with it then I appologize for wasting your time. 

Just my two cents worth.

I am very interested in who runs this sport. IMHO I like who we have.

As Flex said thoughs were not my words but the word of our host. It's posted here if you would like to take a look.

The reason for my post was to remind folks the true purpose of this forum and to encourage civility. I feel that we are all guest (even if we feel this is our home)here and should should act like it.

[Chuck D]

Flex:

I'm sorry too. Sometimes I take this "stuff" too seriously.

Chuck D.

[Stewart]

Please to remember that there are THREE candidates for USPSA President - one being myself, a write-in candidate- thanks, Stewart Pomeroy

[JFD]

This thread is pretty interesting. Lots of items of interest being discussed.

I voted for MV. I like the job he's done so far and I think his vision of the future is sound.

I love L-10, but would shoot Limited with my single stack if L-10 and Production were combined. I'm figuring all the freedoms in L-10 would dissappear with such a combo. I really hope this is an urban legend. I believe we need both divisions. I would be happy to sacrifice the Revolver division instead. I haven't seen anyone with a wheel gun in a couple of years.

Manufacturer support is a good thing. Happy firearms manufacturers tend to mean positive press in the gun rags. I quit reading the stupid things after seeing the gun salesmen/writers beating up on USPSA/IPSC all the time.

[shred]

By FAR (and Vince started the fire elsewhere) the two closest divisions in terms of equipment rules are Limited and Lim-10, not L10 and Production. Whether the growth of Production is new shooters or old ones moving over, it makes no sense to mess with that. Honestly I expect nothing to happen until after the AWB is settled one way or the other. Too many shooters invested in too much gear for that.

[Carlos]

Issues: there seem to be 2 issues here: 1) the future of some un-named division in USPSA and 2) the USPSA presidency. To Stewart Pomeroy: would you please post your own responses to the exact candidate questions as they appeared in Front Sight? Specifically, this discussion suggests we are all interested in knowing exactly what you (and Mike Voigt) propose to do to our current divisions. It seems clear that Denise Minor would keep the divisions intact.

Thanks to MGMCALEER, we know that Mike Voigt's response from Front Sight is: “I believe we may need to reduce the number of divisions we have currently.” The rest of his response addresses the possibility of aligning USPSA divisions w/ IPSC or vice versa, which tells us nothing about what USPSA divisions he wants to “reduce”.

As of this morning, it does not appear that MV has responded to MGMCALEER’s request for clarification. I want to know the answer to this but it is predictable as to what it will be. Considering the fact that the company owned by MV does not produce or sell any revolvers or double action pistols, and that his company (along w/ STI) produce the majority of Limited and Open division guns used in the nationals (according to the equipment poll results published in Front Sight) I do not believe MV will propose to eliminate (or “reduce” - call it what you like) either Open or Limited division. Thus, I believe the divisions which MV has said “may need to [be] reduce[d]” are: Production, Revolver, and L10. I use the word “believe” because, again, we have not had a response from Mike Voigt. Accordingly, I will re-send MGMCALEER’s question and post the response (if any) here.

I have owned and competed with the excellent quality and innovative SV and STI products in Limited and Open, as well as owning & competing with guns governed by Production & L10 divisions. While I have enjoyed Open & Limited, I see a dire need for the other divisions. I could not agree more with Vince Pinto’s statements & comment:

“Limited 10 is overwhelmingly dominated by SAO pistols (e.g. the STI/SVI/Para/Caspian genre), as are Open and Limited Divisions. Production Division specifically prohibits SAO pistols, hence this is the only place where "mainstream" manufacturers (e.g. Glock, Beretta, S&W, CZ, H&K, Sig-Sauer, Walther etc.) are competitive. If you try to combine Limited 10 with Production, say "Bye Bye" to the mainstream manufacturers, their sponsorship dollars and all their fans, with absolutely nothing gained.”

If one cares only about Open & Limited, one might not care what happens to Production or L10. Some might even be happy to see the Production shooters & their “minor only” scoring leave the USPSA scene altogether.

However, some of us within the USPSA membership are very concerned with the declining growth of USPSA. The fact is that new shooters most often try USPSA for the first time with something other than a competitive Open or Limited division gun. The new shooters I see all want to use their own firearm, not some unfamiliar borrowed Open or Limited gun. If we “reduce” Production or L-10, could these future new shooters still try out USPSA in Open or Limited with guns from the "mainstream manufacturers” mentioned by Vince?? Sure, under the rules, but honestly ask yourself how many new shooters would return for a second match once they had to fight with x-number of additional mag changes and saw their minor scores compared to the rest of the crowd? When was the last time anybody in your local club won outright in combined results with a production gun? I think it has happened once here in Area 8 in recent memory - rare enough that it was a mere fluke of unusually good shooting by a rare individual (Eric Lund). In reality, new shooters with "mainstream manufacturers" guns would quickly realize that the price of admission to competitively shoot, not just shoot, but competitively shoot in USPSA would be the price of a purpose built & modified Open or Limited division gun, which (not) coincidently you could buy right from very few manufacturers not listed among the “mainstream manufacturers”. Would it be very long before such new shooters took their “mainstream manufacturers” guns w/ minor PF ammo and switched to shooting IDPA? Would the manufacturer's support follow those shooters or stay in USPSA to help out sales of some other company? The idea that we “may” need to “reduce” L10 or Production division seems a perfect way get rid of potential new shooters & ensure the continued decline of USPSA

So, what is the candidate’s answer to the question of where our USPSA divisions are headed? I think we deserve a clear & detailed response from all the candidates on this. I will not comment on issue #2, that is, the USPSA presidency.

[Skywalker]

Don't wanna jump in a "candidate vs candidate" debate from another country, but the issue on divisions raised here got my attention.

I'd like to add something to Carlos comment about Production Division, beginners and expensive equipment; at least I'd like to bring in the experience we had here in Italy.

Background: we haven't had many Open shooters in the past, because Open division is really like Formula 1 when compared to other car races: most expensive equipment, need for a good gunsmith to set-up the gun at least on a yearly basis, and so on. We have always had a strong participation in Standard division, due to the fact that we had Tanfoglios guns readily available at reasonable prices.

Situation: Since the very beginning of Production division, we had a big raise in newcomers match participation, and our Federation has been revitalized with a large number of new subscriptions: the lo-cost appeal of competing in major championship matches with stock guns and gear has paid its share.

At present, in each match, we have the same competitors number in Prod div. than in Standard, and they both have a strong lead on Open div. (altough modified gained a temporary interest is rapidly downfalling).

The same interest for Production is actually raising Revolver div. competitors number: it started out as a 4/5 competitors affaire, and now we usually register 15/20 revo competitors each match, and the trend is growing.

Given this experience, I would strongly contrast dismission of Production division: it is the starting step to get a lot of new shooters into this sport. They may eventually move to another division, once they decide they are interested in IPSC competition and what kind of gun they like to shoot, but they will always give practical shooting a try if they feel they can shoot a match with what they already have in their closet.

(my .000000002 c)

[Carlos]

Here is the e-mail I forwarded to our president this morning. I will post his response if it is sent to me.

Dear Mike,

There is an important on-going discussion concerning the current election for USPSA presidency which involves your position on the future of our divisions. Please take a look at the forum run by IPSC Grand Master Brian Enos at www.brianenos.com under USPSA questions & titled "Minor v. Voigt". I have posted a direct link to the post below. Specifically, could you please clarify your position on which USPSA divisions may need to be reduced? Thank you for all of your hard work to date on behalf of the USPSA membership and I look forward to your response. Very best regards,

D.C. Johnson, TY44934

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...f=6&t=7314&st=0

Skywalker: Thanks again; I think your experiences with Production in Italy are relevant re: growth & new shooters. Also agree about modified division which, as you know, is not recognized in USPSA; I think it is a dying division everywhere else. BTW, I posted a link to your fine site over on Glocktalk since Rex powder came up & you guys have more experince with the stuff that we here in the US. DVC! Regards, C.

[Vince Pinto]

Carlos,

One small correction. Although I'm not his spokesman or accountant, I'm 99% sure that Mike Voigt is no longer connected in any way with SVI , other than the fact that his name is still there from his early association with Sandy Strayer (the "S" in "SVI").

In fact, I believe these days Mike is actually sponsored by STI, as are many other top USPSA competitors.

[Stewart]

Carlos: I would not reduce the divisions. I do think that USPSA Production rules need to be more in line with IPSC, and not become another arms race.

Thanks

Stewart

[Carlos]

Vince: Point taken & thanks, that is an important clarification. Without the direct financial interest in SV, it is less clear where MV may be headed. Thus, it would appear all the more crucial to have a response from MV as to which divisions "may need to be reduced" since the divisions under MV's consideration for reduction might even include Open and Limited. Only MV knows for certain. As has been pointed out, shooters in each division have substantial amounts invested in equipment particular to the division rules. When discussing the reduction of divisions, the stakes would appear quite high.

Stewart: Thanks, your reply was quick. Will you post answers to the remaining candidate questions?

[Stewart]

Carlos and others: I understand that this is not the place for Presidential debates or discussion. Therefore, if you have questions regarding my positions ie: USPSA direction and policies - my email is "WriteInPresident@aol.com" - I will respond promptly.

Thanks

Stewart Pomeroy

[reneet]

I would do this by combining L10 and Production as they are the closest in equiptment type.

This entire idea is based upon a flawed presumption... L10 and Production are no where near each other in equipment type.

[Flexmoney]

I don't think the USPSA president has any direct power over the rules.

There are commitees that get together to recommend changes, then the BOD votes on any changes, right? The president would only vote if there was a tie?

[Loves2Shoot]

I would do this by combining L10 and Production as they are the closest in equiptment type.

This entire idea is based upon a flawed presumption... L10 and Production are no where near each other in equipment type.

What flawed pressumtion?

ie single stack, bushing barrel, standard guide rod, 5lb trigger, no mag well.

This is dang close to a production gun's performance and at a similiar cost and mag capacity.

Most of the gun used in L10 around here are SS 1911's and a few Glocks.

[Carlos]

I believe what reneet means is that L10 can and usually is shot (in area 8 anyway) with an Limited class STI or SVI .40 bull barrel, long heavy dust cover & tungsten guide rod, mag well, light tuned trigger & highcaps loaded to 10 rounds. Granted, Leatham has shown that he (& lesser mortals) can realistically compete in L10 with a nearly stock Springfield or Kimber 1911 in .45, scored major.

Production is a different matter. While a bone stock Glock 17/Sig/92F/CZ/S&W auto in the hands of a 1st time shooter 'could' enter L10/scored minor, does anyone think that his or her scores would be competitive? Still, we still have no answer as to exactly what Division changes might be proposed by a potential president. It would be ideal to find out their answer & then discuss the merits of the proposed change.

Flex - agreed & it needs to be remembered that there is a full government in place and the president cannot act alone. However, the issue here is the leadership of our president. The choices are defined by the campaign platforms of Minor v. Voigt v. Pomeroy. While the president is not a dictator, I would like to know in what direction our leader intends to lead us. Whether he/she will succeed in leading us down that road is a different issue.

[EricW]

[On Topic Reminder Mode ON]

Vince thoughtfully started another thread for Lim 10 vs. Limited. If the the destiny of the thread is to debate divisions, let's start another thread and do so, or alter the topic of the Lim 10 vs. Limited thread and take the discussion there.

I do really like the information being presented about the merits of the candidates and their platforms and the tenor in which it's being presented. Good stuff.

(There's no place like home. )

FWIW, in regards to Stewart's comment, it is quite correct that this isn't the place for knockdown-dragout political debates, but (IMHO) simply expounding on the candidates' platforms so that USPSA members can be intelligent voters is a *good* thing and shouldn't be unwelcome.

[Stewart]

Well, since I was asked - This is the way I think USPSA should be going!

With the help of the Board of Directors, I would attempt to implement the following items, If elected President of USPSA -

1. Mandatory disclosure statement from all Officers - NROI Director and Area Directors. This disclosure would be available to all members.

2. Open up the process, members to be allowed to attend the annual board meeting and make comments. All member input on any rules changes. Have the rules stable for at least 5 years.

3. Two Nationals a year -- All Pistols -- 3 Gun

4. Align the Production rules more with the IPSC Production rules.

5. More stringent enforcement of equipment rules and chronograph.

6. A yearly Awards Banquet, held in conjunction with the Shot Show, that would recognize all the Point Series Divisional Champions - National Team to be selected from Points Series Champions - expand Points Series to include - Ladies - Junior

Thanks,

Stewart Pomeroy

[BigDave]

I did not start this forum to discuss or debate political issues of any kind - either for IPSC, USPSA, or governmental.

Words from our fearless leader.

[Shooter Grrl]

I am a single stack shooter and want to compete with shooters using the same gear as me.

As a single stack shooter, you have an ENTIRE sport at your ready. You should check them out someday, I think they're called Single Stack Society or something like that.

[vluc]

4. Align the Production rules more with the IPSC Production rules.

ooh, vluc not a happy camper.....

[ong45]

I'm guessing that if any division would be eliminated it might be revolver?

James

[shred]

There's always "Modified". Is that still around? Won't be but four people in the US annoyed by killing that.

hmmm.. scoping my rulebook, it looks like we already did. So much for the easy call.

[banjobart]

I voted for Denise Minor, although I have nothing against Michael Voight whatsoever, this seemed like an easy decision after reading both of their statements in Front Sight magazine.

I work my butt off at the club and state level and do not have much use for the Nationals and dumb ass TV deals. I would like a little more assistance from HQ at the club level, I see too many local clubs struggling or folding.

I do not think that watching MV hose target arrays at warp speed with his Open gun will get new shooters to the local clubs; To the contray, all IPSC shooting I have ever viewed on TV has reinforced the notion that all IPSC/USPSA shooting requires 3K race guns with scopes and ports, nothing that Joe Blow can afford. One has to twist Joe's arm to get him out to a local match, he hardly believes it will be fun without an expensive race gun. TV coverage to date has only hurt USPSA.

Keep it off the air until it shows regular folks (like Mom and Dad in a T-shirt and jeans-no fancy logo outfits) shooting the guns they bought at the local gun shop stuffed in an Uncle Miikes Kydex holster that cost 20 bucks. Other wise TV coverage does a disservice to the local clubs that are trying to bring in new shooters, it reinforces stereotypes of IPSC shooting. being expensive and an equipment race.

2%, disregard at will, thank you.